Now, Blizzard Chief Creative Officer Rob Pardo has added more fuel to the fire, telling Polygon that a console build of the game is currently "up and running" in Blizzard's offices, and "looking pretty cool" to boot. While Pardo said the team is "hoping to get it far enough along where we can make it an official project," the company is still not at the point where a console port can be officially confirmed. Diablo III lead designer Jay Wilson added that the company is "exploring console options," in case that was still unclear.

A console version of Diablo III wouldn't be totally unprecedented—the original Diablo received a PlayStation port in 1998, complete with a local co-op mode. More recently, the Xbox Live Arcade port of Torchlightproved that the basic Diablo formula can work just fine on a living room TV with a handheld controller. While Runic hasn't ruled out a similar console port for Torchlight 2, Runic Games CEO Max Schaefer told IGN in September that such a move would require extra development time and downsampling of the game's art assets.

Blizzard has continued to update the existing PC and Mac versions of Diablo III, most notably by extending the level cap and adding a challenging "Infernal Machine" boss mode for late game players. During an investor call last month, Activision Blizzard president Mike Morhaime confirmed an expansion pack for the game is in the works but refused to comment on the timing of its release.

64 Reader Comments

Apart from the RMAH Diablo III almost plays like a console game anyway. Blizzard already blocks one of the biggest upsides to PC gaming (modding) and their graphics aren't so high-end that a console couldn't handle them @ 1080p, with maybe some of the effects turned down.

They need to port WoW to the 720 when it comes out, and then put the controller version on the PC as an option. I play it with a controller all the time, it isn't that complex. I can only play certain classes in PvP though as you can't turn around with a controller as fast as a mouse.

Cool, another platform for people to potentially buy it on. It doesn't help me though, as I didn't buy it on principle previously.

Ok, I'll bite. Then why bother posting that, if you clearly are not interested? saying "yawn,that's nice but I will still not buy it" it's not contributing to make a discussion, it's just posting for the sake of it.

To me it looks like good news for the folks that want to play the game but don't want to shell out money to buy/upgrade a PC. Not that it is Crysis-level on specs, though.

I have no doubts Blizzard could pull off Diablo on a console from a technical perspective. What happens to the Battle.net integration though? In other words, would I be able to play using my existing characters on xbox live? Cuz that would be pretty cool. If not, then I don't have any interest other than an academic one.

The PC gamers may end up driving Blizzard into consoles with comments like "I didn't buy it on principle" because consoles are already always-online and loaded with DRM and people mostly don't care.

I have to say I haven't had a problem with the always online component of Diablo 3. My biggest issues with the game are the lack of unique content and the poor integration of the auction house with the actual game. Also, the need to use the auction house is a bit annoying. I played the game for over 90 hours and only saw a single Legendary drop. That's just wrong.

D3 is such a tough situation. It does so many things right and so many things wrong. I still play it occasionally and have fun for a while but quickly get bored and stop again for a while. It makes me sad because I was so, so excited for it and looking forward to it for so long.

Something that gets lost in the PC vs console debate is online play and how much extra that costs to manage. Moving to console may have a lot to do with using that platforms already established multi-player services. It also cuts-down on issue related to "gaming the system" hacks that take advantage of the open PC platform.

Lets just hope that next gen systems will allow for "3rd party" usage so regular people can take advantage of the cool new hardware.

D3 is such a tough situation. It does so many things right and so many things wrong. I still play it occasionally and have fun for a while but quickly get bored and stop again for a while. It makes me sad because I was so, so excited for it and looking forward to it for so long.

I find it helps if you don't consider it a spiritual sequel to D2. Take the game for what it is and it is actually pretty good. The UI was definitely designed with console in mind so here's to hoping for some cross platform multiplayer.

If the console version will run standalone without connecting to their servers, then I will buy it. If the console version is integrated with Battle.net the way the computer version is, then I will not.

Cool, another platform for people to potentially buy it on. It doesn't help me though, as I didn't buy it on principle previously.

Ok, I'll bite. Then why bother posting that, if you clearly are not interested? saying "yawn,that's nice but I will still not buy it" it's not contributing to make a discussion, it's just posting for the sake of it.

To me it looks like good news for the folks that want to play the game but don't want to shell out money to buy/upgrade a PC. Not that it is Crysis-level on specs, though.

Because I think it is awesome that for those people who did not buy it on PC for whatever reason and have no qualms with the auction house or always on bits to be able to play what I've heard is a fun game. I have literally the same response as you, but I'm still sticking to my guns on not buying it out of principle. Doesn't mean I don't think it's awesome for those who want to play it though.

The big thing is what consoles(s)? Because of the RMAH Blizzard will still likely require an always-on connection. The Wii U, 360, and PS3 are all capable here. The problem I see is for the 360. Microsoft tends to want control of the networking side, and they also want a cut of all transactions over their network. That means RMAH transactions would be subject to both a MS and Blizzard tax before sellers see a dime. And that's if MS and Blizzard can get together to make it happen (as of now, MS has only acquiesced to EA in terms of network control).

TL2 is designed with console play in mind. D3 is not. Many of the skills are targetted and not directional. This means it basically only works with the Wii/Wii U's pointers, or you have a joystick controlled on screen cursor, which I have NEVER seen done properly. I don't even see how it could be done without feeling like ass.

Having a console version "up and running" and having it actually be fun to play are very different things.

Moving to console may have a lot to do with using that platforms already established multi-player services. It also cuts-down on issue related to "gaming the system" hacks that take advantage of the open PC platform. .

Nobody has ever hacked console games. People just don't cheat or hack in console games. Right?

If I had to guess, I would say that the largest issue facing Blizzard is actually Battle.Net and XBOX Live. To my knowledge, Microsoft hasn't been nearly as willing to taint their ecosystem with third party solutions, so what happens to Blizzard's Battle.Net push? Will they implement some hokey way to get it on the 360 or just ignore it completely? Sony most likely isn't an issue as they already worked with Valve on getting a Steam implementation working with Portal 2.

Also, I'm not too sure if Microsoft requiring XBOX Live Gold to play online really meshes with Blizzard. I know I wouldn't be too pleased if I offer my game with free online play where I paid to host the servers, and Microsoft went and charged money to simply allow them to access it. I'm not trying to get into the debate of free vs. online (i.e. PSN vs. XBL) as that's been argued ad nauseum, but I think it's a fair point in regard to Blizzard's Battle.Net.

If they say they have it running in the lab with no infornation on whether it will be released or not, it means the version in the Lab is techincally "up and running", but either wouldn't be fun to play, or they haven't worked out how to run it on XBL and/or PSN and/or whatever-the-Wii-network-is-called-these-days. In short, there's no guarantee we'll ever see it.

Remember: Starcraft Ghost was up and playable before Blizzard canned it.

I have a weird relationship with Diablo 3... I was in Inferno very quickly on my demon hunter but got bored of the grind and stopped playing way before 5.1 hit. Since 5.1, I've returned to the game and found it much more enjoyable.

Part of this is due to my willingness to use the RMAH for gold and items this time around (another part is the game is more "fun" due to monster power, now I can tweak the game so I have what I consider a challenge without being frustrated by enrage timers). I look at it like a movie ticket, a case of beer, a burger at my favorite resturant, or a WoW sub. Some may call it "pay to win" but it's a PvE game (unfortunately... I think Blizz missed a chance to grab the upset arena players in WoW) and being more powerful is fun. So in the end my money spent on RMAH is purely entertainment dollars.

The biggest downside with D3 is that if you are unwilling, or unable to either devote countless hours to farming or spend real world money on the game, you'll probably find yourself bored sometime in inferno.

Woah, you mean I can play the disappointment of the year (decade if you want to be a jerk about it) on a console now! Well sign me up.

I just can't get excited for blizzard rehash's anymore. Especially since they've decided to go the screw the customer root more then a few times now with their drm schemes. =/ blizrd was my favorite of all time up until recently, I think they've lost their way.

The biggest problem with D3 is the randomized loot. It's immersion breaking.

Imagine you are a barbarian on an epic quest to slay Diablo and you come across an "ancient" legendary 2- handed Axe. It has an inscription on it, and a badass name and glows with power and... 100dmg, +250int, +10str, +2% faster cast. -_- Who would use such a thing? why would anyone even bother to craft such an item? (you have to believe, that in the game world, all the weapons had to have been made by someone) It doesn't make any logical sense for this weapon to exist.

Legendary items are already exceedingly rare to get in the game, add on top of that the wildly random stat generation and it makes useful legendary items an order of magnitude more rare. On top of that, the game mechanics are so dumbed down that with so many different stats that could be put on a weapon, only 2 even matter.

frustrating and not fun. so what if it comes to console, it'll still be boring.

While Runic hasn't ruled out a similar console port for Torchlight 2, Runic Games CEO Max Schaefer told IGN in September that such a move would require extra development time and downsampling of the game's art assets.

What? I thought that Trochlight 2 could run on old netbooks, it certainly runs fine on my GMA4500MHD, without shadows, AA, but still fine!

The biggest problem with D3 is the randomized loot. It's immersion breaking.

Imagine you are a barbarian on an epic quest to slay Diablo and you come across an "ancient" legendary 2- handed Axe. It has an inscription on it, and a badass name and glows with power and... 100dmg, +250int, +10str, +2% faster cast. -_- Who would use such a thing? why would anyone even bother to craft such an item? (you have to believe, that in the game world, all the weapons had to have been made by someone) It doesn't make any logical sense for this weapon to exist.

Legendary items are already exceedingly rare to get in the game, add on top of that the wildly random stat generation and it makes useful legendary items an order of magnitude more rare. On top of that, the game mechanics are so dumbed down that with so many different stats that could be put on a weapon, only 2 even matter.

frustrating and not fun. so what if it comes to console, it'll still be boring.

Legendary items aren't quite so rare anymore. With the latest patch, they drop rather frequently if your MF is pretty high.

I also want to add that I made over $1000 playing Diablo 3, and that it changes nothing. I honestly do not believe Blizzard is the same Blizzard we have grown to love over the years. Businessmen pleasing shareholders, that is what befell them as a company. Now it's about how many games they can sell, and how much those games can nickel and dime us for. A good way to make money short-term, and a great way to lose hardcore fans long-term.

Online only, connection issues, all that aside, the game is not that good. Playing it made me realize Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing. They basically ignored what works from previous arpg games and wound up making an inferior game, while selling millions of copies on the name alone.

They basically ignored what works from previous arpg games and wound up making an inferior game, while selling millions of copies on the name alone.

I really wish it wasn't like this, but it is what it is.

Games don't sell 10m on name alone. Doesn't happen. They MUST be doing something right, even if it's not something you personally like - there are only 40 games in history that have sold that.. The more casual Diablo players vastly outnumber those that will play the game through several difficulties to grind items. Most people who bought Starcraft play the campaign and don't touch the supposed main attraction of 1v1 ladder.

I'm enjoying the game a lot and looking forward to a larger player base. I'm not sure how exactly this could be played on a console without a mouse pointer (how do you teleport to a specific spot?!) but as long as the game mechanics don't change in order to accommodate consoles, I say the more the merrier.

The only aspect of D3 that I really dislike is the very weak story along with downright deplorable scripts for the voice actors. But after playing through it and now just playing the end game, the qualities of the game just outweigh that part. I like the AH, I like the RMAH and I buy into and accept the argument that item duping can only be prevented with an always-on DRM.

I'm enjoying the game a lot and looking forward to a larger player base. I'm not sure how exactly this could be played on a console without a mouse pointer (how do you teleport to a specific spot?!) but as long as the game mechanics don't change in order to accommodate consoles, I say the more the merrier.

The only aspect of D3 that I really dislike is the very weak story along with downright deplorable scripts for the voice actors. But after playing through it and now just playing the end game, the qualities of the game just outweigh that part. I like the AH, I like the RMAH and I buy into and accept the argument that item duping can only be prevented with an always-on DRM.

Then why has item duping, hacking and cheating been such a huge issue since day one?

Blizzard sold a lot of copies of Diablo 3. If they release a console version; would it be an additional service for people who purchased the game to play it on a console, or would the plan be to try and find enough people who didn't already buy the game to justify all the technical, legal, and monetary hurdles of releasing it to consoles.

Honestly, a tablet or handheld port would make seem to make more sense if they just want to increase player numbers. Still, it's been out half a year and games just come out way to fast for people to still be interested in a game no deeper than its free to play alternatives.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.